The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared California to use its newly drawn congressional map in this year’s midterm elections, handing Democrats a major win as both parties battle for control of the U.S. House.
Voters approved the map last year after Democrats in Sacramento moved to counter a GOP friendly redistricting plan in Texas that President Donald Trump backed as part of an effort to protect Republicans’ razor thin House majority.
In an unsigned order, the court rejected an emergency bid from the California Republican Party to block the map, the New York Times reported. State Republicans argued the lines were unconstitutional because race, not politics, drove the redistricting process.
A lower federal court had already dismissed that claim.
The ruling came just two months after the Supreme Court allowed Texas to move forward with its own redistricting plan, a decision that triggered a nationwide gerrymandering arms race by boosting Republicans’ chances of picking up as many as five additional House seats.
“With an eye on the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, several States have in recent months redrawn their congressional districts in ways that are predicted to favor the State’s dominant political party,” the court said in its December order in the Texas case.
“Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.”
Justice Samuel Alito was more direct, writing that the “impetus” behind both states’ plans was “partisan advantage pure and simple.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined that concurring opinion.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that claims of partisan gerrymandering are not subject to review by federal courts.
The Trump administration supported the Texas map but opposed California’s plan, arguing the Golden State’s districts were “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Administration lawyers said the California case differed from Texas because of the timing of candidate filing deadlines and because both the California Republican Party and the federal government submitted alternative maps that met California’s stated partisan goals.
The U.S. Supreme Court seems ready to impose stricter controls on the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by federal courts, which could protect state lawmakers from challenges that mix race and partisanship in the redistricting process.
The impending decision carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations cautioning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.
In the re-arguments of Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority expressed a willingness to consider an approach supported by the Trump Justice Department.
This could complicate the ability of plaintiffs to succeed in claims of racial vote dilution in areas where voting patterns closely mirror party affiliations—a defining characteristic of contemporary Southern politics.
The situation arises from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court has found likely to violate Section 2 by funneling Black voters—who represent approximately one-third of the state’s population—into a single majority-Black district out of a total of six.
In 2024, lawmakers took action by adopting a remedial plan that established a second district of this kind. However, white voters took legal action, claiming that the adjustments constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge ruled in their favor.
The case, initially presented last March, has returned, as the justices have requested new briefs regarding the constitutionality of Section 2.
Last summer, Louisiana changed its position, now advocating for the Court to restrict or abolish race-conscious districting. Black voters who launched the initial challenge stood by the remedial map, asserting that it effectively addresses the documented dilution of minority voting power.
Conservative justices displayed hesitation to completely overturn Section 2, a provision established in 1965 and reinforced in 1982 to prevent practices that deny minorities equal access to the electoral process.
